Creationists

[newpolitics]

ID does not use the same methodology as "Darwinism" so, it is not as scientifically viable

Uhh, yes it does. Darwin's method was to study the present to understand the distant past. That is EXACTLY what ID theory does. Funny that you and DAWS just lay down unsupported statements without any substance. Where's the beef?? It is funny how you just remain silent when I ask the really hard questions.

Copied from previous post for your review and comment:

You have totally failed to grasp the concept. Darwin and Lyell both said if we want to understand the distant past, we don't come up with some wacky explanation, we look at what is happening in the present. You really are making it more difficult that it is. In the present, the only source we find for digital code is an intelligent agent, that is, in the case of the binary code, a human is the designer. Therefore, the only known source for digital code in the present is an intelligent agent. Using Darwin's and Lyell's methodology, we can conclude that the digital code in dna (Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) must have had an intelligent source. Unlike Creationism, ID does not get into theological discussions or postulations about who the intelligent source of dna is, only that the best explanation based on the present is that DNA had an intelligent source, and is not from some random process. In the present, we find NO random processes producing functional, digital code and information storage and retrieval systems. We don't see V8 engines or circuit boards self assembling in nature. Therefore, what basis do we have to assume that the micro machines in the cell self-assembled. The answer is a resounding NONE!!! To throw out ID is to throw out the very basis of Darwinism, studying the present to understand the past. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

From Wiki:

"A binary code is a way of representing text or computer processor instructions by the use of the binary number system's two-binary digits 0 and 1. This is accomplished by assigning a bit string to each particular symbol or instruction. For example, a binary string of eight binary digits (bits) can represent any of 256 possible values and can therefore correspond to a variety of different symbols, letters or instructions.

In computing and telecommunication, binary codes are used for any of a variety of methods of encoding data, such as character strings, into bit strings. Those methods may be fixed-width or variable-width. In a fixed-width binary code, each letter, digit, or other character, is represented by a bit string of the same length; that bit string, interpreted as a binary number, is usually displayed in code tables in octal, decimal or hexadecimal notation. There are many character sets and many character encodings for them."

Yeah, cause the ID argument takes a severe leap in logic... DUH, only if you are blinded and brainwashed by Darwinism!!!!"

Also from Wiki:

DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, biomolecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area. Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments and applications of DNA computing."

"DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer."

"Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0↔3, and 1↔2 (binary 00↔11 and 01↔10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A↔T and C↔G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]

For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).

[edit] Data transmissionQuaternary line codes have been used for transmission, from the invention of the telegraph to the 2B1Q code used in modern ISDN circuits."

You have mischaracterized "Darwin's Method" or better and more properly known as the scientific method, because it was not invented by Darwin, he merely used it.

The Oxford English Dictionary: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

Necessarily, any scientific inquiry has to be done in the present, and is sometimes about the past, but this is not what characterizes or defines it. It is simply a contextual implication. So, I didn't bother to read the rest of your post, because you premise is false, as you can not properly define that which you are trying to explain.

 

[UltimateReality]

Maybe you should try considering the evidence rather then attack someone for their views in faith.

Odd that you should make such a claim when you drench your posts with "Darwinists", "evolutionists", etc.

As for evidence, you simply link to creationist websites which further fraudulent information.

Here is a thought why don't you show my information and the creationist websites fraudulent information.

You are not listening,pay attention address my questions or take your drivel somewhere else. Is this DAWS in hiding ?

Yeah, come to think of it, DAWS is curiously absent from the bashing.

 

[UltimateReality]

Uhh, yes it does. Darwin's method was to study the present to understand the distant past. That is EXACTLY what ID theory does. Funny that you and DAWS just lay down unsupported statements without any substance. Where's the beef?? It is funny how you just remain silent when I ask the really hard questions.

Copied from previous post for your review and comment:

You have totally failed to grasp the concept. Darwin and Lyell both said if we want to understand the distant past, we don't come up with some wacky explanation, we look at what is happening in the present. You really are making it more difficult that it is. In the present, the only source we find for digital code is an intelligent agent, that is, in the case of the binary code, a human is the designer. Therefore, the only known source for digital code in the present is an intelligent agent. Using Darwin's and Lyell's methodology, we can conclude that the digital code in dna (Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) must have had an intelligent source. Unlike Creationism, ID does not get into theological discussions or postulations about who the intelligent source of dna is, only that the best explanation based on the present is that DNA had an intelligent source, and is not from some random process. In the present, we find NO random processes producing functional, digital code and information storage and retrieval systems. We don't see V8 engines or circuit boards self assembling in nature. Therefore, what basis do we have to assume that the micro machines in the cell self-assembled. The answer is a resounding NONE!!! To throw out ID is to throw out the very basis of Darwinism, studying the present to understand the past. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

From Wiki:

"A binary code is a way of representing text or computer processor instructions by the use of the binary number system's two-binary digits 0 and 1. This is accomplished by assigning a bit string to each particular symbol or instruction. For example, a binary string of eight binary digits (bits) can represent any of 256 possible values and can therefore correspond to a variety of different symbols, letters or instructions.

In computing and telecommunication, binary codes are used for any of a variety of methods of encoding data, such as character strings, into bit strings. Those methods may be fixed-width or variable-width. In a fixed-width binary code, each letter, digit, or other character, is represented by a bit string of the same length; that bit string, interpreted as a binary number, is usually displayed in code tables in octal, decimal or hexadecimal notation. There are many character sets and many character encodings for them."

Yeah, cause the ID argument takes a severe leap in logic... DUH, only if you are blinded and brainwashed by Darwinism!!!!"

Also from Wiki:

DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, biomolecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area. Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments and applications of DNA computing."

"DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer."

"Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0↔3, and 1↔2 (binary 00↔11 and 01↔10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A↔T and C↔G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]

For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).

[edit] Data transmissionQuaternary line codes have been used for transmission, from the invention of the telegraph to the 2B1Q code used in modern ISDN circuits."

You have mischaracterized "Darwin's Method" or better and more properly known as the scientific method, because it was not invented by Darwin, he merely used it.

The Oxford English Dictionary: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

Necessarily, any scientific inquiry has to be done in the present, and is sometimes about the past, but this is not what characterizes or defines it. It is simply a contextual implication. So, I didn't bother to read the rest of your post, because you premise is false, as you can not properly define that which you are trying to explain.

Your statement about my mis-characterization is wrong, as is your assertion that my premise is not properly defined. What you have failed to grasp is that I'm not talking about all scientific method, but only that method which Mr. Darwin used to develop the theory of evolution. Let's consult the Evolutinary-biased Wikipedia, just so no one can accuse me of using an ID Theory biased website.

"Sir Charles Lyell, 1st Baronet, Kt FRS (14 November 1797 – 22 February 1875) was a British lawyer and the foremost geologist of his day. He is best known as the author of Principles of Geology, which popularised James Hutton's concepts of uniformitarianism – the idea that the earth was shaped by slow-moving forces still in operation today. Lyell was a close and influential friend of Charles Darwin."

And here my friend, is the principles that necessarily abide, and are the method by which Stephen Meyer makes his intelligent source argument for the digital code in DNA. Also, from Wikipedia...

"Principles of Geology, Lyell's first book, was also his most famous, most influential, and most important. First published in three volumes in 1830–33, it established Lyell's credentials as an important geological theorist and propounded the doctrine of uniformitarianism.[8] It was a work of synthesis, backed by his own personal observations on his travels.

The central argument in Principles was that the present is the key to the past – a concept of the Scottish Enlightenment which David Hume had stated as "all inferences from experience suppose ... that the future will resemble the past", and James Hutton had described when he wrote in 1788 that "from what has actually been, we have data for concluding with regard to that which is to happen thereafter."[9]

And wait for it, wait for it, here is the foundation for Darwin's Natural Selection theory. He studied the present in the Galapagos to make inferences about what happened in the distant past.
[Continued from above] Geological remains from the distant past can, and should, be explained by reference to geological processes now in operation and thus directly observable."

Darwin applied this same line of thinking to Biology as has Stephen Meyer (who happens to be a Geo-physicists by trade) to the digital code. Do you not think it curious that man had already begun to understand binary code as being able to be used in computers as far back as 1937, long before the discovery of the information technology was discovered in DNA?

All I can say is... Bam.

 

[UltimateReality]

What Meyer is asking, and brilliantly I might add, is what do we observe in the present regarding digital code and information storage, transmission and retrieval? In Darwin's day, they thought the cell was a blob of plasma. No we know they are tiny factories, with data storage, transmission, copy and retrieval capabilities. They also contain micro-machines responsible for protein assembly. They are incredibly complex, with not just one process happening at a given time, but multi-layer functions all occurring at the same time and working in concert to achieve the end result.

Do we find complex, functional digital code randomly generated itself in the present? NO!!! Do we find any random process resulting in complex systems? NO!!! When we look at the few pathetic examples of natural selection, the so-called ICONS of EVOLUTION, we are left with an empty feeling as in "is that all your got?!?!?!" Meyers claim is that every source of functional, digital code we observe in the present, has an intelligent agent as its source. Therefore, since we don't see complex systems self-assembling and random processes puking out complex digital code in the present, how can we make such assertions about the distant past? We can't and call it science.

Just so we are all square, ID Theory never tries to identify the Designer. That is a philosophical and religious question to grapple with, not a scientific one, but we can assert that the BEST EXPLANATION for the digital code in DNA is an intelligent source, based on what we observe in the present. It really is such a simple theory that a 3rd grader should be able to grasp it.

Can you really watch this and as a logical, thinking human being somehow convince yourself that his "just happened" randomly, because the parts that didn't work didn't make it???

mRNA Translation (Advanced) - YouTube

 

[UltimateReality]

Oh and before you say Meyer, as a Geophysicist has no business proposing this theory on DNA, you might want to read this little snippet from Wiki regarding Charles Darwin...

"Darwin's early interest in nature led him to neglect his medical education at the University of Edinburgh; instead, he helped to investigate marine invertebrates. Studies at the University of Cambridge encouraged his passion for natural science.[9] His five-year voyage on HMS Beagle established him as an eminent geologist whose observations and theories supported Charles Lyell's uniformitarian ideas, and publication of his journal of the voyage made him famous as a popular author.[10]"

Puzzled by the geographical distribution of wildlife and fossils he collected on the voyage, Darwin began detailed investigations and in 1838 conceived his theory of natural selection.[11] Although he discussed his ideas with several naturalists, he needed time for extensive research and his geological work had priority.[12]

 

[UltimateReality]

"You are looking at an assembly line of amazing miniature biochemical machines that are pulling apart the dna double helix and cranking out a copy of each strand."

"DNA's most extraordinary secret-how a simple code is turned into flesh and blood"

"the building blocks to make the RNA enter through an intake hole."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yqESR7E4b_8

 

[Hollie]

.

Just so we are all square, ID Theory never tries to identify the Designer. That is a philosophical and religious question to grapple with, not a scientific one,

This is one of the falsehoods used by the creationst crowd. It's a cynical attempt to offer appearances that ID is separate from fundie creationsim when it is not. It is no surprise that ID / creationists use the same sources for their falsified "scientific" claims. That's because the arguments are precisely the same. What theses groups fail to understand is that there is no evidence for any "designer", and further no apparent design that a designer is needed to solve. The operation of natural law serves as a perfectly adequate explanation for the universe as we know it.

It's impossible to miss the statements (and impossible to give credibility) wherein ID / creationists will claim that " ... is a philosophical and religious question to grapple with, not a scientific one".

It is truly laughable. A religious claim by definition implies a god, gods, or similar supernatural agent. ID'ers / creationists will offer these statements not understanding that they confound and dismantle their own arguments with contradictory and self refuting statements.

 

[Hollie]

Oh and before you say Meyer, as a Geophysicist has no business proposing this theory on DNA, you might want to read this little snippet from Wiki regarding Charles Darwin...

You make the mistake of excusing Meyer as a religious hack with nonsensical references.

As is so often the case with ID'ers / creationists, (Meyer included), their fields of study often have no connection to their claimed "amazing discoveries" and falsified "reports".

It really is an embarassment that ID'ers / creationists are reduced to using non-scientists, using non-scientific methods to further religious claims. This is precisely why the few organizations that promote ID / creationism are ridiculed by the mainstream science as not to be taken seriously. This is also why peer-review is absent among the ID / creationism community. Science doesn't support pre-conceived agendas that narrowly refine data to fit pre-conceived results and as we've seen, the ID / creationism community is notorious for falsifying data and making sure that no information which might contradict their loopy claims gets past the censors.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I guess Hollie wishes not to discuss science, not surprising.

 

[Hollie]

I guess Hollie wishes not to discuss science, not surprising.

You poor thing.

If you science to offer that would be fine. However, "science" that is culled from creationist websites is not science. I've shown you repeatedly that the sites you link to have a predefined agenda of pressing supernaturalism and do so by falsifying and / or explicitly ignoring data that refuted their religious claims.

Funding creationist websites are promoting religion, not science. Your need to promote an agenda that is utterly hostile to science has been demonstrated within this thread.

 

[UltimateReality]

Oh and before you say Meyer, as a Geophysicist has no business proposing this theory on DNA, you might want to read this little snippet from Wiki regarding Charles Darwin...

You make the mistake of excusing Meyer as a religious hack with nonsensical references.

As is so often the case with ID'ers / creationists, (Meyer included), their fields of study often have no connection to their claimed "amazing discoveries" and falsified "reports".

Hollie, are your really so stupid or so blinded by your anger that you failed to make the logic leap here? Darwin was a geologist. You seem to have no issue that his theory applies to biology. Therefore, you can't have it one way when it suits you and call others out for the same thing when it does not. I anticipated your CANNED response before you made it and you still missed it!!!! GEEEZZ!!! How old are you? Your writing style is about that of a 19-year-old.

 

[UltimateReality]

This is also why peer-review is absent among the ID / creationism community.

Another false claim previously proven wrong a few posts back with substantiated info easily verifiable on the internet, one publication of which has been around since 1926, pre-dating the Creationists and ID Theory movements.

I guess Hollie wishes not to discuss science, not surprising.

You poor thing.

If you science to offer that would be fine. However, "science" that is culled from creationist websites is not science. I've shown you repeatedly that the sites you link to have a predefined agenda of pressing supernaturalism and do so by falsifying and / or explicitly ignoring data that refuted their religious claims.

Funding creationist websites are promoting religion, not science. Your need to promote an agenda that is utterly hostile to science has been demonstrated within this thread.

So what of Newton, arguably one of the greatest scientist of all time? Will you discount his theories because he was a fundie? You ignorance of history is appalling. I should have stopped responding to you when I said I was going to before. You are so blind that it really reminds me of arguing with a drunk when I was a cop. Both are exercises in futility. I will waste no more time with you since you cannot even present, or follow, a logical thought. Have a nice fundamentalist Materialist purposeless existence.

YWC, I would suggest you don't entertain this any longer as well. Dust off your feet and head to the next town.

 

[Hollie]

Another false claim previously proven wrong a few posts back with substantiated info easily verifiable on the internet, one publication of which has been around since 1926, pre-dating the Creationists and ID Theory movements.


So what of Newton, arguably one of the greatest scientist of all time? Will you discount his theories because he was a fundie? You ignorance of history is appalling. I should have stopped responding to you when I said I was going to before. You are so blind that it really reminds me of arguing with a drunk when I was a cop. Both are exercises in futility. I will waste no more time with you since you cannot even present, or follow, a logical thought. Have a nice fundamentalist Materialist purposeless existence.

YWC, I would suggest you don't entertain this any longer as well. Dust off your feet and head to the next town.

You will be surprised to learn that we can actually perform repeatable tests, make predictions and confirm the results surrounding gravity.

How do we test the environment of gods. Not just your gods but what we might find to be the true gods.

You might want to dust off your shoes and find a way to present an argument that doesn't require you screeching "because I say so".

 

[Hollie]

Oh and before you say Meyer, as a Geophysicist has no business proposing this theory on DNA, you might want to read this little snippet from Wiki regarding Charles Darwin...

You make the mistake of excusing Meyer as a religious hack with nonsensical references.

As is so often the case with ID'ers / creationists, (Meyer included), their fields of study often have no connection to their claimed "amazing discoveries" and falsified "reports".

Hollie, are your really so stupid or so blinded by your anger that you failed to make the logic leap here? Darwin was a geologist. You seem to have no issue that his theory applies to biology. Therefore, you can't have it one way when it suits you and call others out for the same thing when it does not. I anticipated your CANNED response before you made it and you still missed it!!!! GEEEZZ!!! How old are you? Your writing style is about that of a 19-year-old.

It's a shame that your comments are now reduced to calling people stupid because your arguments fall apart. It's convenient to vent your frustration at others but your frustration is ultimately a product of your inability to make convincing claims. Since your claims presume the requirement for a prior committment to creationist dogma, you're at an obvious disadvantage. Basically, my "carma" just ran over your dogma.

While we know that from your perspective, rejecting the claims of creationism implies we're stupid, you have offered nothing to refute the vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, there are large collections of transitional fossils which provide a timeline of the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, mammals from reptiles, whales from land dwellers etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such connections at the biological and chemical level.

Similar evidence comes from ecology, geology, anatomy, population genetics and related fields. That's just the outline. But against all the above, you counter with "The Gods Did It". Although not every bone from every animal that has lived for millions of years has not been recovered or preserved, the processes of evolution have left behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare, contrast and examine the features and structures of living organisms. Doing so, we find an order to the organisms that establishes a definable hierarchy of characteristics. This was known even before Darwin. We know that skeletal structures of many animals have changed over vast time scales. We can use processes such as carbon dating to establish timelines and compare the fossil evidence at different ages and see how these skeletal structures have changed. We apply these technologies to better understand biology, cell development, genetics,and so on.

The reason why fundie creationist Christians refuse to accept and ignore the science before them is because they must have a literal Adam and Eve. Genesis, and subsequent scripture, defines all human beings as being born totally depraved with Original Sin, and because of that, the requirement of Salvation through Christ. That was the reason for the crucifixion. This is crucial to fundamentalist Christians and why their hatred and revulsion for science runs so deep.

Believe what you wish regarding gods, you are free to believe what you like. But you cannot brute force you gods into the realm of science for resolution as science cannot examine the supernatural.

 

[koshergrl]

Sure. Link all these transitional fossils.

*Turning on the elevator music* and waiting.

 

[koshergrl]

Ok time for another.

I thought you'd have those links all ready at hand and stuff:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rl3yVq6rrg]Walk Don't Run '64 - The Ventures - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

This is simply more of your science-loathing aganda. I can understand that in the science-loathing world of Christian fundies, "Darwinism" is an oft-used term to denigrate science but do you think those childish tactics bolster your claims?

Secondly, provide details about what two "Darwinists" have done what you describe above?

How do you get a net gain of DNA information if the previous information is no longer ?

Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?

Fusion and transfection are two examples of how DNA can gain information. If you're the scientist you say you are, you should know that.

Also, if a gene mutates the information isn't gone. It still resides in the other copy of the chromosome. Something you also should know!!!

ywc is not a scientist neither is ur....

 

[koshergrl]

Calling transitional fossils...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j7uAimpx3k]Baker Street (full-length stereo with lyrics)[/ame]

 

[daws101]

This is funny I attended the University of Arizona. You gave the typical answer on a so called beneficial mutation The sickle-cell anemia mutation.

I also see you are not up to date on the human genome project because they declare there is no junk DNA.



mutations

Scientific data - High Rate of Deleterious Mutations

The Myth of Beneficial Mutations - CSI

Hey YWCA, I went to U of A too. Studied mechanical engineering. What years were you there? I was 84 to 88. I actually sold the HVAC equipment on TGEN here in Phoenix and a guy that goes to our church is a researching there. And he is not even science loathing!

1981 to 1985

Probably when most of these ignorant kids were born.

says the most ignorant person on this thread..
only an obsessive asshat woud fuck up a vacation here in california in june at the beach by texting ...your wife must be proud!

 

[UltimateReality]

Hey YWCA, I went to U of A too. Studied mechanical engineering. What years were you there? I was 84 to 88. I actually sold the HVAC equipment on TGEN here in Phoenix and a guy that goes to our church is a researching there. And he is not even science loathing!

1981 to 1985

Probably when most of these ignorant kids were born.

says the most ignorant person on this thread..
only an obsessive asshat woud fuck up a vacation here in california in june at the beach by texting ...your wife must be proud!

DAWS, where you been? You missed all the fun with your fundie evolutionist sister Holly over the weekend.